Teaching human evolution
You seem to equate science with knowledge and that's where it gets dangerous. When science have attained such a level of authorithy it must be questioned.
What creationists do wrong is that they try to fight science on it's own terms even though what they preach is by it's very nature unscientific and therefore not falsifiable in a scientific way. This tells me that they have other motives for their actions than finding the truth. On the other hand, most scientists only accept that which is scientifically falsifiable and disregard the rest and that is very narrow-minded. Most scientists I have had contact with are very narrow-minded and the more narrow-minded the more vocal. The creationists and their opponents (like Dawkins) are really two of a kind and are not to be trusted.
What creationists do wrong is that they try to fight science on it's own terms even though what they preach is by it's very nature unscientific and therefore not falsifiable in a scientific way. This tells me that they have other motives for their actions than finding the truth. On the other hand, most scientists only accept that which is scientifically falsifiable and disregard the rest and that is very narrow-minded. Most scientists I have had contact with are very narrow-minded and the more narrow-minded the more vocal. The creationists and their opponents (like Dawkins) are really two of a kind and are not to be trusted.
-
Super Laydock
- Posts: 3094
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:24 pm
- Location: Latis / Netherlands
If it's not falsifiable today, then we just haven't reached the level of knowledge yet to falsify it.320x240 wrote:. On the other hand, most scientists only accept that which is scientifically falsifiable and disregard the rest and that is very narrow-minded.
Humankind should be more humble indeed.
We'll never be able to 100% reconstruct the past, but we can make assumptions on what we know has happened or can verify today.
I see a lot of voids in the common theory of human evolution these days.
But I believe evolution made us what we are now. We just don't know every relevant thing about our own species past and don't have every part of the puzzle yet.
Maybe a "new" missing link is found tomorrow, who knows.

Barroom hero!
Bathroom hero!
Bathroom hero!
Have you actually looked at what's currently known about human evolution? I agree that we will never know everything, but plenty of 'missing links' have been found! When creationists say 'well, we need to see an intermediate between apes and men' and you find one, then they say that isn't enough, then you find more, and they say that still isn't enough, I'm pretty certain no amount of fossil evidence will every convince them.Super Laydock wrote:
I see a lot of voids in the common theory of human evolution these days.
But I believe evolution made us what we are now. We just don't know every relevant thing about our own species past and don't have every part of the puzzle yet.
Maybe a "new" missing link is found tomorrow, who knows.
Human evolution FAQ at talk origins
Uh, I thought most people understood that science is not a tool for describing everything (there is a whole world of the subjective that it can not describe). The narrow-mindedness you describe I haven't seen as a quality of scientists but of the layman who is too naive to understand this philosophical distinction. The problem is really coming from scientific literacy--and really the whole creationist/evolutionist argument is a problem (for the most part) of scientific literacy. If people actually understood what science was and what its limitations were, the only people who'd have a problem with evolution would be the fundamentalists who believe the bible should be ready like a science textbook.320x240 wrote:On the other hand, most scientists only accept that which is scientifically falsifiable and disregard the rest and that is very narrow-minded.
Again, I would stress that this 'conflict' is one entirely born out of ignorance and to honest, a lack of cognitive sophistication. It has been fueled by ignoramuses like the ICR and the Discover institute, but also aided by the inaccessibility of science (and the tendency of Dawkins to say hotheaded things--though have you actually read his science books?). The conflict or controversy however is not real. Science is not trying to attack your right to free thought, and there's simply no evidence to support this.
Really, where is your evidence?
SHMUP sale page.Randorama wrote:ban CMoon for being a closet Jerry Falwell cockmonster/Ann Coulter fan, Nijska a bronie (ack! The horror!), and Ed Oscuro being unable to post 100-word arguments without writing 3-pages posts.
Eugenics: you know it's right!
I'd say the tone of your posts is evidence enough of the problems within the scientific community today. Note carefully how I use the expression 'the scientific community' rather than 'science'. The problem lies with the people who are in care of this science not in the science itself. A little bit of intellectual restraint would be in order.
As you so rightly point out a proper understanding of what science is and is not makes it easy to see how much of the critisism leveled at it (or rather at the scientific community) is unfounded and often (especially in the case of creationist critic) dishonest. On that we can agree.
As you so rightly point out a proper understanding of what science is and is not makes it easy to see how much of the critisism leveled at it (or rather at the scientific community) is unfounded and often (especially in the case of creationist critic) dishonest. On that we can agree.
Maybe I misunderstand what you're saying here, but science is a process of continually questioning, challenging, and validating the conclusions drawn from the body of evidence. When results aren't being run through alternate forms of test any longer, either no new method of testing is available or useful, or science isn't being performed.320x240 wrote:When science have attained such a level of authorithy it must be questioned.
This does not mean that every english major has the qualification to question experts in other fields, of course (for example, 9/11 goof truthers).
If something isn't falsifiable, science by definition can't touch it. To accept untestable ideas as science would be to destroy the validity of any result and throw science into disrepute.
I think the big problems in science right now could be:
1.) science reporter bandwagon: hey we don't do any science we just popularize it
2.) scientists (and others) opining on matters outside their narrow fields, i.e. climate scientists making sweeping statements (this happens a lot with climate change vs. human pollution, for example)
Outside science, is there really something useless about the idea of testability as a condition of the possibility of truth, or sense? I don't think so.
This is how flat-earthers often couch the question of what science is not for. It carries no emotional weight with me, and what else could it carry?
This is how flat-earthers often couch the question of what science is not for. It carries no emotional weight with me, and what else could it carry?
What you and CMoon has given in this thread is a (rather romantic and abstract) view on how science should be conducted. I'm more interested in how scientific study is actually conducted on a day to day basis and the people who do this work. You describe science as a self-contained entity that can excist without man. It is precisely this image of science that is a danger to free thought. It creates this faceless authority that can never be doubted.
Are you saying that only science have access to objective truth? As I said earlier: This is where it get's dangerous.CMoon wrote:Uh, I thought most people understood that science is not a tool for describing everything (there is a whole world of the subjective that it can not describe).
Most of my tone is a response to your many 'claims' which have not been supported by any evidence. I've asked repeatedly for both clarification on all points and I don't feel you've responded to that.320x240 wrote:I'd say the tone of your posts is evidence enough of the problems within the scientific community today.
The claims you have made are hearsay only as far as I can tell. And yes, I get defensive when someone claims my entire field of study, that which I've committed ~ half my life to at this point is the enemy of free thought. Especially when it isn't even backed by a shred of evidence or even clarification as to what this might actually mean.
SHMUP sale page.Randorama wrote:ban CMoon for being a closet Jerry Falwell cockmonster/Ann Coulter fan, Nijska a bronie (ack! The horror!), and Ed Oscuro being unable to post 100-word arguments without writing 3-pages posts.
Eugenics: you know it's right!
I can only assume this is a language barrier. Science can only work within the realms of the objective does not mean that science is the only source of objective information.320x240 wrote: Are you saying that only science have access to objective truth? As I said earlier: This is where it get's dangerous.
To be honest, I'm starting to get rather bored with this. If you could at least stick to a few of your claims and back them up it might be interesting, but as far as I can tell several posters including myself have been rebutting most of your claims only for you to make more, all without any evidence to back them up.
Blah!
SHMUP sale page.Randorama wrote:ban CMoon for being a closet Jerry Falwell cockmonster/Ann Coulter fan, Nijska a bronie (ack! The horror!), and Ed Oscuro being unable to post 100-word arguments without writing 3-pages posts.
Eugenics: you know it's right!
Woohoo, triple post!Ed Oscuro wrote:[
I think the big problems in science right now could be:
1.) science reporter bandwagon: hey we don't do any science we just popularize it
2.) scientists (and others) opining on matters outside their narrow fields, i.e. climate scientists making sweeping statements (this happens a lot with climate change vs. human pollution, for example)
Ed, I think you are totally on, which is why in US schools, teaching bias in science has started to become a major issue. In both cases you mention we have examples of things said that I wish could be retracted. Science does have its own bounds and sometimes both the journalists and scientists step out of these bounds. The danger is in people (I suspect is what 320x240 means) mistaking these blunders for what science is all about.
Given that he was already mentioned, Dawkins is of course such a great example. I'd take the vast majority of what he's written is great stuff, very well thought out and well researched, but then he seems to gleefully get caught on camera saying atrocious things, and we are to presume that this somehow represents the view of science, when clearly Dawkins has taken off his scientist hat and is speaking for himself.
It only brings me back to a need for a more educated public where people actually understand what science is and where science cuts off--and it is precisely why Dawkins doesn't say 'oh look, I'm taking my scientist hat off right now'--he assumes people get it, but of course they don't. They also don't get that a very few outspoken scientists or bad journalists don't represent the scientific community as a whole, or way science is in general done.
To anyone (like 320x240) who is really questioning this--what is your actual experience with science? Have you been part of a scientific community, worked under a professor doing research, etc? For anyone who has, I think these delusions of a misuse of science would go away almost immediately, and rather that any negative perception have science (if there is any real justification at all) is coming from the aforementioned points by the very perceptive Ed.
SHMUP sale page.Randorama wrote:ban CMoon for being a closet Jerry Falwell cockmonster/Ann Coulter fan, Nijska a bronie (ack! The horror!), and Ed Oscuro being unable to post 100-word arguments without writing 3-pages posts.
Eugenics: you know it's right!
-
Super Laydock
- Posts: 3094
- Joined: Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:24 pm
- Location: Latis / Netherlands
@ CMoon: Thanks 
There's been a flurry of posts and I'm afraid we're losing the thread, so...
Anyhow, yes, science is an attempt to follow an abstract process. The idea is that with enough observations and repeated experimentation you can overcome the problems inherent in observation due to the uncertainty of the actual world.
I'm also interested in how science is actually done (daily and otherwise), and that means following certain strictures so that they remain mindful of the limits of their profession.
The limits of one's own expertise are usually the bigger consideration, as I mentioned earlier.
You're clearly right, science doesn't have its own existence as something that isn't practiced by people, but that doesn't mean you can do whatever you like with it. I'm really not sure what prompted you to make this claim (partially because I don't know whose post you're responding to).
Also, something CMoon wrote about science being seen as "the enemy of free thought" which caused an interesting thought to cross my mind - yes, science tells us that perhaps we shouldn't give just any thought that crosses our mind credence - I vacillate back and forth on the question as to whether empiricism holds an answer to religion, but I can say that science frees me from having to give ideas that can't be tested or are highly improbable much attention.

There's been a flurry of posts and I'm afraid we're losing the thread, so...
Do you mean me?320x240 wrote:What you and CMoon has given in this thread is a (rather romantic and abstract) view on how science should be conducted. I'm more interested in how scientific study is actually conducted on a day to day basis and the people who do this work.
Anyhow, yes, science is an attempt to follow an abstract process. The idea is that with enough observations and repeated experimentation you can overcome the problems inherent in observation due to the uncertainty of the actual world.
I'm also interested in how science is actually done (daily and otherwise), and that means following certain strictures so that they remain mindful of the limits of their profession.
The limits of one's own expertise are usually the bigger consideration, as I mentioned earlier.
I think what you mean is that somebody here was saying that science has an actual reality outside its practice (by people, of course), which is such a complete misunderstanding of what science really is that we have to go back to the definition of science to see why such a stance is impossible to take.You describe science as a self-contained entity that can excist without man.
You're clearly right, science doesn't have its own existence as something that isn't practiced by people, but that doesn't mean you can do whatever you like with it. I'm really not sure what prompted you to make this claim (partially because I don't know whose post you're responding to).
Also, something CMoon wrote about science being seen as "the enemy of free thought" which caused an interesting thought to cross my mind - yes, science tells us that perhaps we shouldn't give just any thought that crosses our mind credence - I vacillate back and forth on the question as to whether empiricism holds an answer to religion, but I can say that science frees me from having to give ideas that can't be tested or are highly improbable much attention.
Once again, this is not about science in itself but about how it is being understood and represented by the scientific community and also about how it is being percieved by people outside of this community. You are worried about the (increasing) negativism and attacks leveled at science and in light of the diletantism of most such attacks I can understand where you're coming from. I think we can all agree that science is what it is and should be treated (and respected) as such. That is not the point of my argument. My point is rather that scientists as a whole (and in this thread, you) come across as rather narrow-minded and condescending. When this is coupled with a certain emotional aggresivness (which it usually is) it comes across as a struggle for power more than anything. At that point it has stopped being about the truth. Even more important is how science in the course of it's evolution have become what it itself has had to fight - a great immobile authority. My claim is that it is the scientists themselves that have brought about this change. Of course. this is something that cannot be measured, so I don't expect you to accept this view.CMoon wrote:I think these delusions of a misuse of science would go away almost immediately, and rather that any negative perception have science (if there is any real justification at all) is coming from the aforementioned points by the very perceptive Ed.
In short:
- a lack of understanding of science among scientists themselves (you have not experienced this, which is good. It could be a regional thing.)
- popular representation of science (This is of course a much debated subject inside the scientific community itself.)
- a lack of intellectual restraint and basic skills in the art of dialectics (The works of Søren (not Alex) Kierkegaard should be mandatory for any budding scientist.)
we have a gene in us that was planted by a virus. we pass it to our children, but every human has it. this means we all came from a family that had this implanted gene.
chimps have it to.
there is only one likely explanation, and the idea that God (or gods) would play such a juvenile trick is the true blasphemy.
chimps have it to.
there is only one likely explanation, and the idea that God (or gods) would play such a juvenile trick is the true blasphemy.
Scientists? Humans.320x240 wrote:My claim is that it is the scientists themselves that have brought about this change.
The quote about absolute power and corruption applies here. Any large society which gains an invincible position tends to be irritated by those who fail to convert. The differences between atheists/scientists and the religious should be enough to demonstrate that, while not perfect, something about science (and modern society, of course) may be holding back much of the bile and violence that accompanies repressions from intellectual leaders.
Clearly there is a ways to go, but all things considered we do what we can.
Also, I note that some of the scientists I was thinking of who were involved in climatology yet discuss matters outside their realm of experience did so mildly (I can't say inoffensively) and somewhat reasonably (the problem aside).
I think scientists cause problems more through their naivety than through any intended malice. I don't know which is worse though. To speak frankly, most scientists I have encountered (and of course I do this everyday down at the university) are like overgrown kids, having an admirable amount of energy (especially if we are talking natural sciences) and a sort of natural (one could almost say instinctive) honesty, but no sense of the whole at all. I know this is the classical and often derogatory meant description of a typical scientist but my experience is what it is and I'm not about to hide it.Ed Oscuro wrote:Also, I note that some of the scientists I was thinking of who were involved in climatology yet discuss matters outside their realm of experience did so mildly (I can't say inoffensively) and somewhat reasonably (the problem aside).
-
Emperor Fossil
- Posts: 76
- Joined: Sat Mar 31, 2007 1:41 am
- Location: Australia
This is starting to sound like a philosophy undergraduate getting his tits in a tangle because the science undergrads (and indeed the general public) aren't really interested in whatever the fuck Derrida was waffling on about.320x240 wrote:To speak frankly, most scientists I have encountered (and of course I do this everyday down at the university) are like overgrown kids, having an admirable amount of energy (especially if we are talking natural sciences) and a sort of natural (one could almost say instinctive) honesty, but no sense of the whole at all.
olololEmperor Fossil wrote:This is starting to sound like a philosophy undergraduate getting his tits in a tangle because the science undergrads (and indeed the general public) aren't really interested in whatever the fuck Derrida was waffling on about.320x240 wrote:To speak frankly, most scientists I have encountered (and of course I do this everyday down at the university) are like overgrown kids, having an admirable amount of energy (especially if we are talking natural sciences) and a sort of natural (one could almost say instinctive) honesty, but no sense of the whole at all.
wins the thread
Yeah, god forbid a person speaks about his own personal experience instead of going on about some abstract theory he just memorized by heart. For your information, my backround lies in manual labour. I just took up studying again as a thirty year old, not because of any love of studying but to get away from having to work the night shift. Academics doesn't exactly hold my love.Emperor Fossil wrote:This is starting to sound like a philosophy undergraduate getting his tits in a tangle because the science undergrads (and indeed the general public) aren't really interested in whatever the fuck Derrida was waffling on about.
PS! I'm not an undergraduate student, so, of course, I too can look down on them - if I thought there where any merit in that.
It is powerup of laser.
it would be unseemly and unjust for me to point and laugh at the blue collar guy disaffected with work and academia, but I think you managed to fall below the level of Emperor Fossil's assumption, which is pretty remarkable
I'm not saying that I'm any better, but Jesus, you should step back and listen to yourself.
tl;dr comedy gold in here
No shit? Academics murdered your family? Maybe Emperor Fossil should have mistaken you for a business student or Maynard G. Krebs.320x240 wrote:Academics doesn't exactly hold my love.
I think the question is more whether you have superior points over them. The fervent hope you can escape the night shift, telecommute from a Hawaiian beach (with the assistance of OMG SCIENCE), and an allergy to intellectual life don't qualify.320x240 wrote:PS! I'm not an undergraduate student, so, of course, I too can look down on them - if I thought there where any merit in that.
I'm not saying that I'm any better, but Jesus, you should step back and listen to yourself.
tl;dr comedy gold in here
That is shockingly ignorant, and later I heard on the radio quite a lot of high school science teachers in the USA was just as ignorant. Nevertheless is this vital knowledge for an electrician? Sherlok Holmes couldn't care less.CMoon wrote:Oh yeah, I know you want to discuss more of this!
Well, actually, I'm not looking to stir up anything here, just wanted to share a story. So, as a science teacher, evolution is not only a national standard, but so is the evolution of human beings. I've always made it clear to my students that I don't care what they accept and that IMO evolution and God go hand and hand pretty nicely (can't wait for Rando to attack me on that statement.) This particular class had been very good about going through the evolutionary material understanding they had to know about it, whether they accepted it or not. Then, BAM! We hit human evolution and it is like hitting a wall. We are watching a film about it and a third of them refuse to pay any attention, staring at the wall rather than the film. Even refusing to do their assignments over the matter.
Anyway, part of me feels that if so many people are going to 'freak out' over the idea of evolution, I am not so anxious to teach it. On the other hand, all of those people who do not accept human evolution also have no explanation for the evidence--and the evidence has to be explained! It is also absurd to shrink away from something that is both central to some of the basic human questions (how did we get here?) and also something so widely accepted by the scientific community.
In a sense, I feel as though I've offended a bunch of flat-earthers in my class for suggesting it is round. It is a weird feeling, having such a large percentage of your kids basically unwilling to consider what the facts seem to be telling us.
So yeah, not only felt like sharing, but with an international community, I wondered how others reacted to the idea of human evolution (never felt like I was teaching about 'taboo topics' before...)
Well I would agree that I've seen some science teachers who, despite holding degrees, didn't seem terribly knowledgeable. On the other hand, I'd like to know where these statistics come from? I haven't seen any 'teacher tests' since the initial content tests that many student teachers take.bakaichi wrote: That is shockingly ignorant, and later I heard on the radio quite a lot of high school science teachers in the USA was just as ignorant. Nevertheless is this vital knowledge for an electrician? Sherlok Holmes couldn't care less.
On to the more serious issue however; regardless of how common sense it is to say so-and-so doesn't actually need a certain topic because they are becoming an electrician, it misses the premise of what education in the US is about. To begin with, science teachers are attempting to cover national science standards, and there are very well mapped out benchmarks about where a kid should be throughout every year of their education. It isn't to say that the exact curriculum has been mapped out by year (although in some school districts it has) but there are definitely expectations that in the course of an American education, every student will have been exposed to X, Y and Z.
In this sense, what the student may actually need for the job we're assuming they'll have; rather, we're looking at preparing students for an unknown tomorrow. And I should add, that there isn't really choice in this matter--this is my actual job description. I am well aware that there are students who'd be better taking ditch digging 101, but I can't really choose to stop doing my job, even if common sense might dictate otherwise.
I'd add that I am actually torn between both arguments. First, there really is no way to know what career a 15 year old will ultimately take up, but secondly, there is a question of what life in your country starts looking like when people only know the bare minimum to do their job. On the other hand, their are clearly a great number of young people who are already very far behind in math and english and for them, vocational ed may be the only real solution.
SHMUP sale page.Randorama wrote:ban CMoon for being a closet Jerry Falwell cockmonster/Ann Coulter fan, Nijska a bronie (ack! The horror!), and Ed Oscuro being unable to post 100-word arguments without writing 3-pages posts.
Eugenics: you know it's right!
A little lighthearted jest and you start acting like a unionist leader. I must say I'm not sure exactly who should step back and take a look in the mirror now.Ed Oscuro wrote:My pants are in a knot
As I wrote earlier I can very well understand where you (and especially CMoon) are coming from, in light of all the attacks (and hatred) leveled at science in the US. Over here though, the situation is different, simply because noone cares about science at all. I find that a sorry state myself, because natural science at least can be a good teacher in the art of stringent, clear thinking. I only wish it was as good a teacher in the art of refraining from personal attacks. Then all would be well.
It is powerup of laser.
its a well known fact that the pinnacle of evolution is a middle classed white man from oxfordI'm Alec wrote: "You see, I and I believe in evolution, because down in a Jamaica, lots of monkey looking mother fucker. Ha ha ha ha."
Thats about the only recollection of any conversation I've ever had about evolution. He was a pretty funny cat. I think he was the drummer, and a pretty good one at that.

I recall there was some kind of check list the Nazi Germans used to have for who was more "pure" than others. there was a study of it a few years back and apparently it was pretty hard to achieve perfection. But the bone structure which was described most furthest from a monkey would be actually be the Inuit people. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inuit which are lets face it very not German. (dont flame me im not racist I have black friends and everything)
the only reason why were able to do a lot of the things we take for granted now is because various governments took lots of documents on various nasty tests they did on jews during the war.Twiddle wrote:The Nazis used science, therefore it's bad.
Follow me on twitter for tees and my ramblings @karoshidrop
shmups members can purchase here http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=21158
shmups members can purchase here http://shmups.system11.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=21158
http://www.blackpeopleloveus.com/Lordstar wrote:dont flame me im not racist I have black friends and everything
It's still funny.
SHMUP sale page.Randorama wrote:ban CMoon for being a closet Jerry Falwell cockmonster/Ann Coulter fan, Nijska a bronie (ack! The horror!), and Ed Oscuro being unable to post 100-word arguments without writing 3-pages posts.
Eugenics: you know it's right!